ID: 0004

The Honorable John A. Boehner
Member, United States House of
Representatives
5617 Liberty Fairfield Road
Hamilton, Ohio 45011

Dear Congressman Boehner:

This responds to your letter of April 7, 1994, to the Department of Transportation (DOT) on behalf of your constituents, John Cail Sr. and James Lipps of Eaton.

Messrs. Cail and Lipps have requested your assistance in obtaining DOT "approval and color code designation" for their "Life Lites" system. This is a stop lamp system consisting of two 18-inch long 1/2-inch wide devices intended to be mounted on the front of a vehicle alongside the windshield pillars, to emit a light of either purple or coral. The system is activated with the rear stop lamps when the brakes are applied, and it is intended to warn observers to the front of a vehicle that the vehicle is braking. It "could be mounted to most existing vehicles and could be readily incorporated into new car designs."

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)is the component of DOT that is responsible for motor vehicle safety under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. The Act does not authorize NHTSA to "approve" or disapprove safety inventions such as Life Lites. We do advise, however, whether such inventions are permitted under the Act and applicable regulations such as the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The fact that a device may be permitted under NHTSA laws must not be interpreted as our approval or endorsement of it.

The standard that applies to motor vehicle lighting is Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment. Life Lites emitting either color may be installed as original equipment by the manufacturer, distributor, or dealer at the time a vehicle is sold to its first purchaser provided that it does not impair the effectiveness of any of the frontal lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108 such as headlamps and turn signals. The materials you enclosed show a color closeup newspaper photo of a Life Lite

in operation; its relatively low output does not appear sufficient to impair headlamp effectiveness. There would be concern, however, if it were to distract attention from an operating turn signal and, in this sense, impair its effectiveness. However, the responsibility for determining whether supplemental original lighting equipment impairs the effectiveness of the required lighting equipment rests with the installer, and NHTSA will not question this determination unless it appears clearly erroneous.

Life Lites that are sold in the aftermarket and intended for vehicles in use, are prohibited by the Act if their installation by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business "knowingly renders inoperative, in whole or part" the required motor vehicle lighting equipment. Though the words are different between the Act and Standard No. 108, in this instance we would equate partial inoperability with impairment of effectiveness and the same considerations would apply.

However, the Act does not prohibit vehicle owners under any circumstances from installing Life Lites themselves if they are able to do so. But the legality of Life Lites of either color and under any scenario remains subject to the laws of any State in which the device is operated. We are unable to advise your constituents of the laws of the individual States, and suggest that they write for an opinion to the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

cc: Washington Office

re:108#VSA d:6/2/94

ID: 000490.drn

Susanne Krg, Account Manager
Lemfrder Corporation
Schaltungssysteme GmbH
Technical Center
15811 Centennial Drive
Northville, MI48167

Dear Ms. Krg:

This responds to your August 30, 2002, request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 102, Transmission shift lever sequence, starter interlock, and transmission braking effect. In a letter of August 1, 2002, we responded to your earlier questions whether a motor vehicle that includes several proposed shift-by-wire shift patterns would meet Standard No. 102. In your August 30, 2002, letter you provide diagrams with more details of several other shift patterns that we did not address earlier because not enough detail was provided.

Lemfrder did not ask for confidential treatment of any information in its letter. In a September 26, 2002, telephone conversation between yourself and Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you confirmed that after consulting with Lemfrder engineers in Germany, Lemfrder does not request confidential treatment for any information in the letter.

Please note that unlike the case in Europe and Japan, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not "approve" motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable standards. The following presents our opinion of Lemfrders proposed design, based on the information in your letter to us.




The Proposed Design Described in Lemfrders August 30, 2002, Letter

I will assume for purposes of this letter that NHTSAs August 1, 2002, description of Lemfrders general design applies to the proposed shift patterns depicted in your new letter. NHTSA noted that in Lemfrders design, the shifting would be done by means of a joy stick, which, after being shifted, would return to a default position designated as the "X" position. NHTSA further noted that the joy stick may be moved straight up, straight down, and to the right

and left (i.e., imagining the face of a clock, to the 12 oclock, 6 oclock, 3 oclock, and 9 oclock positions) only. Diagonal movements such as to the one oclock or two oclock positions would not be permitted. Most of the shift patterns have two neutral positions. In all of the shift patterns depicted, before the joy stick may go into "drive" or "reverse," it must first be moved to "neutral." Thus, for example, to go into reverse, one moves the joy stick straight up (to go to neutral) and then to the left (to reverse).

With your new letter, you provided diagrams of nine more proposed configurations of shift-by-wire shift patterns. In five of the proposed configurations, it will be possible to shift from the "X" position manually to a higher or lower drive. For each of these five configurations, your proposed design depicts an "+" and "-" sign that "reflect the possibility to shift manually up or down by tipping towards the plus or minus, while the car is in D." None of the proposed configurations includes a "park" position. We assume that the shift patterns are intended to be used in motor vehicles with automatic transmissions.




Shifting from "Neutral" to "Drive" or "Reverse"

Requirements for shift patterns are specified at paragraph S3.1.1 of Standard No. 102, which states in part:

A neutral position shall be located between forward drive and reverse drive positions . . . . If the transmission shift lever sequence includes a park position, it shall be located at the end, adjacent to the reverse drive position.

All of your nine additional proposed shift patterns meet the requirement that "a neutral position shall be located between forward drive and reverse drive positions." As stated in NHTSAs August 1, 2002, letter since nothing in S3.1.1 specifies that only one neutral position is to be provided, your patterns that would include two neutral positions are not prohibited by S3.1.1.

Since none of your proposed shift patterns includes a "park" position, we will not discuss the S3.1.1 provision specifying that if the transmission shift lever sequence includes a "park" position, it "shall be located at the end, adjacent to the reverse drive position."




Standard No. 102s Identification of Shift Lever Position Requirements

In our letter of August 1, 2002, we noted that unlike traditional transmission shift levers that stay in the gear position selected by the driver, the joy stick in your design defaults to the "X" position after the gear is selected. As a result, a visual display other than the joystick must inform the driver of the current gear selection. The August 1, 2002, explanation of Standard No. 102s identification requirements would apply to the nine shift pattern configurations that you have presented in your letter to us.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions, please contact Ms. Nakama at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:102
1/13/03

ID: 000576.jeg

Mr. Chris Tinto
Vice President
Technical & Regulatory Affairs, Safety
Toyota Motor North America, Inc.
1850 M Street
Suite 600
Washington, DC 20036




Dear Mr. Tinto:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. As discussed below, we confirm that paragraph S4.5.1(e) requires only one air bag warning label on the dashboard (or the steering wheel hub).

As you noted in your letter, paragraph S4.5.1(e), Label on the dashboard, includes three sections. Section (1) states that "(e)xcept as provided in S4.5.1(e)(2), each vehicle that is equipped with an inflatable restraint for the passenger position shall have a [specified] label attached to a location on the dashboard or the steering wheel hub. . . ." Section (2) [S4.5.1(e)(2)] specifies requirements for a similar label for vehicles certified to meet requirements for advanced air bags before December 1, 2003, and section (3) specifies requirements for a similar label for vehicles certified to meet requirements for advanced air bags on or after December 1, 2003.

You stated that Toyotas concern is that although S4.5.1(e)(1) makes an exception for S4.5.1(e)(2), it does not make an exception for S4.5.1(e)(3). You indicated that therefore, as written, both sections S4.5.1(e)(1) and S4.5.1(e)(3) apply. You noted the similarity of the labels required by the two sections, and that the one required by section (3) includes details related to advanced air bags. You stated that Toyota believes it was not NHTSAs intention to require vehicles to have both labels.

This confirms your understanding. The agency intended the S4.5.1(e)(2) and (3) labeling requirements for vehicles certified to meet requirements for advanced air bags to supersede the labeling requirement in S4.5.1(e)(1). Therefore, the exception identified in S4.5.1(e)(1) should include S4.5.1(e)(3) as well as S4.5.1(e)(2). We will issue a technical correction concerning this matter in the future.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Edward Glancy of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:208
d.3/14/05

ID: 000644brownlee.drn

Mr. Rick Brownlee
Charlotte Bus and RV Sales
P.O. Box 218
Simpsonville, SC 29681

Dear Mr. Brownlee:

This responds to your e-mail message to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), requesting information about sales of small buses to child care centers for school pick-up. You explained to Dorothy Nakama of my staff that your company manufactures new vehicles that meet the school bus crashworthiness safety standards, but do not have school bus flashing lights or stop arms. You wish to know whether child care centers may purchase and use these vehicles.

By way of background, keep in mind that Federal law restricts the types of new buses that may be sold to transport children to or from school or school-related events, but does not restrict the use of vehicles. State laws regulate the use of vehicles, including how school age children are to be transported. Presently, NHTSAs requirements do not permit the sale of vehicles such as yours to the centers for the purpose of picking up and dropping off students at schools. However, the adoption of proposed changes to those requirements would permit the sale of the vehicles for that purpose.




Present Requirements

NHTSA is authorized to issue and enforce Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles. Our statute at 49 U.S.C. 30112(a) requires any person selling or leasing a new vehicle to sell or lease a vehicle that meets all applicable motor vehicle safety standards. Accordingly, persons selling or leasing a new "school bus" must sell or lease a vehicle that meets the safety standards applicable to school buses. Our statute at 49 U.S.C. 30125 defines a "school bus" as any passenger motor vehicle that is designed for carrying a driver and more than 10 passengers and which, NHTSA decides, is likely to be "used significantly" to transport "preprimary, primary, and secondary" students to or from school or related events. By regulation, the capacity threshold for school buses corresponds to that of buses -- vehicles designed for carrying more than ten (10) persons.

Your question regarding sales of new buses to child care centers has been addressed for the most part in the enclosed interpretation letter of May 9, 2001, to Collins Bus Corporation. In the Collins letter, we explain dealers' responsibilities in selling new buses to child care centers that will be using the vehicles to transport children to or from schools. (All the enclosures mentioned in the letter are provided.) NHTSAs longstanding position has been that child care centers in and of themselves are not Aschools@ within the meaning of our statute because of their primarily custodial, rather than educational, emphasis. However, when a child care center is providing transportation to or from school or school-related events, then the transportation constitutes the described action--transporting students to or from school--contemplated by the statute. As such, a dealer selling a new bus to a child care center for transporting students to or from school is obligated to sell a new "school bus."




Proposed Change ("Multifunction School Activity Bus")

You state that the child care centers "may be picking up and dropping off at schools." Because your vehicles do not have the flashing lights and stop arms, at present they could not be certified as meeting all school bus FMVSSs and thus cannot be sold to the centers to transport students to or from school. However, the agency is considering adding a new vehicle classification that would allow the sale of such a vehicle for those purposes.

On November 5, 2002 (67 FR 67373), NHTSA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking to establish a new school bus subcategory, the "Multifunction School Activity Bus" (MFSAB).An MFSAB would be a school bus with a gross vehicle weight rating of 6,804 kilograms (15,000 pounds) or less that meets all school bus FMVSSs, except for S5.1.4 of Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, and Standard No. 131, School Bus Pedestrian Safety Devices. That is, the vehicle would be constructed as a school bus except for school bus flashing lamps and stop arms. The MFSABs would have a label stating that they are not to be used to pick school children up from or drop them off at home. If NHTSA issues a final rule establishing the MFSAB subcategory, you will be permitted to sell MFSABs to child care centers.




"Allowable Alternate Vehicles" (AAV)

You also asked: "Will the [allowable alternate vehicles] AAVs be acceptable for pupil transportation for day care centers who may be picking up and dropping off at schools, but who would have no need for the emergency lights and stop arm?" Your question relates to a final rule of January 18, 2001, in which the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Head Start Bureau defined "allowable alternate vehicle" (AAV) as "a vehicle designed for carrying eleven or more people, including the driver, that meets all the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards applicable to school buses, except 49 CFR 571.108 and 571.131." (See 45 CFR 1310.3.)

NHTSAs notice proposing the MFSAB is intended to create a vehicle that would meet the Head Start Programs definition of "allowable alternate vehicle."However, until NHTSA issues a final rule establishing the MFSAB, you may not sell an AAV to a child care center, if you know the center will "significantly" use the bus to transport children "to and from school or related events."




Sales of "Commercial Buses" that Meet Standard No. 220

You also ask whether a "typical 'commercial bus' that passes FMVSS 220 for school bus rollover and meets all safety standards for a commercial bus [would] be acceptable."The answer is no. The "commercial bus" you describe would not meet all of NHTSAs school bus crashworthiness safety standards. Accordingly, the vehicle would not be considered an MFSAB under the November 2002 proposal.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's school bus safety programs, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosures
ref:VSA#571.3
d.2/6/03

ID: 00070cmc

Mr. John A. Meyer
1 Arkie Albanese Avenue
Manlius, NY 13104

Dear Mr. Meyer:

This responds to your October 3, 2002, letter requesting clarification of the labeling requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, Child restraint systems (49 CFR 571.213). In your letter, you ask if a child restraint with a detachable base is required to have the manufacturer and model information labeled on the base as well as the seating portion of the restraint. The answer to your question is no.

By way of background, each new child restraint system for use in motor vehicles sold in the United States must comply with FMVSS No. 213. S5.5 of FMVSS requires that each add-on child restraint system shall be permanently labeled with specified information including, among others: (1) the model name or number of the system; (2) the manufacturers name; and (3) the month, year, and place of manufacture. S4 of FMVSS No. 213 defines "add-on child restraint system" as "any portable child restraint system;" and "child restraint system" as "any device. . .designed for use in a motor vehicle. . .to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh 50 pounds or less. ^[1]"

A detachable base is part of a child restraint system. As long as the labeling requirements are met by the system as a whole, the base is not required to be labeled.

The Agency recently amended the labeling requirements under FMVSS No. 213 to clarify and simplify child restraint labels and instructions. (67 Federal Register 61523; October 1, 2002.) In the preamble to that amendment, the agency stated that several labeling issues may need to be addressed through future rulemaking. We will consider the issues raised in your letter prior to the next rulemaking.

If you have any further questions, please contact Mr. Chris Calamita of this office at (202) 366-0536.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:213
d.1/16/03





---




^[1] The agency is considering extending the standard to apply to child restraints recommended for use by children up to 65 pounds. 67 Federal Register 21806; May 1, 2002.

ID: 000804cmc_a_harness_label

Mabel Moist, Transportation Supervisor
Transportation Service Center
Centennial School District No. 28 Jt.
3424 S.E. 174th
Portland, OR 97236-1235

Dear Ms. Moist:

This is in response responds to your January 30, 2003, letter and to your phone conversation with Chris Calamita of my staff, concerning the use of a safety vest (harness[1]) on a school bus. You stated

that your school district is considering the use of harnesses that attach to school bus seat backs. You ask if school bus occupants must be restrained by a harness if they are seated directly behind a harness-restrained passenger.

While the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has issued guidelines for the safe transport of children in school buses, it is the State that determines how school buses are to be used. We do require labels for seat-mounted harnesses sold for use on school buses to warn against unrestrained occupants sitting directly behind passengers restrained with this type of harness. As explained below, the term restrained refers to the use of any type of occupant restraint, not just a harness system.

By way of background, NHTSA is authorized under 49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq. to issue motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Generally, child restraint systems are prohibited by S5.3.1 of FMVSS No. 213 from having any means designed for attaching the system to a vehicle seat back. However, to facilitate the safe transportation of pre-school and special needs children, the agency issued an interim final rule excluding from this prohibition harnesses that are manufactured for use exclusively on school buses.[2] See 67 Federal Register 64818; October 22, 2002 (copy enclosed). We were concerned in this rulemaking, however, that a school bus seat back could be overloaded during a frontal crash by unrestrained passengers sitting in the seat immediately behind harness-restrained passengers. This overloading could result in injury to a harness-restrained passenger. To address this potential, the interim final rule amended FMVSS No. 213 to require harnesses designed for attachment to a vehicle seat back to be labeled with the following statement:

WARNING! This restraint must only be used on school bus seats. Entire seat directly behind must be unoccupied or have restrained occupants. (S5.6.1.11; emphasis added. There is also a required pictogram.)

The warning informs users that the occupants seated directly behind a harness-restrained occupant must be restrained to prevent overloading the seat back. The means of restraining the rearward occupant could include Type 1 and Type 2 seat belt assemblies and child restraint systems; it is not limited to harness systems. Any properly used occupant restraint will help prevent a passenger seated directly behind a harness-restrained child from overloading the seat back in a frontal crash and help reduce the likelihood of the associated injury.

I hope you find this information helpful. For your further information, I have also included a copy of two NHTSA publications: Guideline for the Safe Transport of Pre-school Age Children in School Buses and Choosing the Correct School Bus for Transporting Pre-school Age Children. If you have any further questions, please contact Mr. Calamita at (202) 366-0536.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosures
ref:213
d.3/13/03

ID: 000808ogm

Mr. Warren Howard
9340 Halsell Road
Gulfport, MS 39501

Dear Mr. Howard:

This responds to your telephone calls asking about the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, as they relate to a device you have developed. According to your calls, the device would prevent the radio or sound system of a vehicle from emitting any sound unless the occupants of all designated seating positions have their seat belts fastened. You ask if the statutes and regulations administered by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) would prohibit the sale or use of such a device.

By way of background, NHTSA administers a statute requiring that motor vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States or imported into the United States be manufactured so as to reduce the likelihood of motor vehicle crashes and of deaths and injuries when crashes do occur. We refer to that statute as the Vehicle Safety Act. It is codified at 49 U.S.C. 30101, et seq.

One of the agencys functions under the Vehicle Safety Act is to issue and enforce Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs). These standards specify safety performance requirements for motor vehicles and/or items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers must certify compliance with all applicable safety standards and permanently apply a label to each vehicle or item of equipment stating that the vehicle complies with all applicable FMVSSs.

Requirements for audible and visual warnings for seat belts are established in S7 of FMVSS No. 208. S7.3 specifies that the driver's seating position be equipped with a seat belt warning system that activates, under specified circumstances, a continuous or intermittent audible signal for a period of "not less than 4 seconds and not more than 8 seconds."

In a letter dated June 7, 2001, to Mr. Bob Archer of Longacre Associates, we indicated that a vehicle manufacturer wishing to provide a voluntary audible signal that sounds after the 8 second period specified in S7.3 of FMVSS No. 208 may do so, but must provide some means for differentiating the voluntarily provided signal from the required signal. We suggested that such differentiation could be provided in various ways; e.g., by time (the voluntarily provided signal begins well after the required signal ends) or sound (the voluntarily provided signal has a different sound than the required signal).

It is our position that a device such as you have described, which would disable a vehicles radio or sound system if occupants are not belted, may be installed in addition to, but not in place of, the warning system required by S7.3. Such a device may be offered either as an original equipment option or an aftermarket item, but it must be configured such that it can be differentiated from the warning system required by S7.3.

You should assure that the installation of your device does not negatively impact any required safety system. After the first sale of a vehicle, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "knowingly making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in that vehicle in compliance with an applicable standard. In general, the "make inoperative" prohibition (49 U.S.C. 30122) requires businesses that modify motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable standard. Violations of this prohibition are punishable by civil penalties of up to $5,000 per violation.

In addition, the device you describe would be considered "motor vehicle equipment" under the vehicle safety act. Therefore, if the device contained a defect (either in manufacture, design, or performance) that relates to motor vehicle safety, the manufacturer would be required to conduct a recall campaign to notify owners and to remedy the defect free of charge.

I hope this information answers your questions. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Otto Matheke of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

cc:      Greg Smith


Garvey, Smith, Nehrbass & Doody, LLC
Suite 3290
3838 North Causeway Blvd.
Metairie, LA 70002

ref:208
d.4/11/03

ID: 000899_Kagimoto_antipinch

Ms. Reiko Kagimoto
Tokai Rika Co., Ltd.
260, Toyota 3-chrome, Oguchi-cho,
Niwa-gun, Aichi-ken, 480-0195
JAPAN




Dear Ms. Kagimoto:

This responds to your e-mail inquiry asking several questions about an "anti-pinch" requirement (i.e., an automatic reversal requirement) for power side sliding doors. Your questions are restated below, with our answers.

Question 1: FMVSS No. 118 specifies the automatic reversal requirement for [some] power windows, partitions, and roof panel systems. Are sliding doors excluded from the requirement even if they have an automatic reversal system?

Answer: Yes, sliding doors are excluded from FMVSS No. 118 automatic reversal requirements even if they have an automatic reversal system.

Question 2: Does NHTSA have any plan to add sliding doors to the automatic reversal requirement of FMVSS No. 118 in the near future?

Answer: NHTSA does not have any plan at this time to require an automatic reversal requirement for power side sliding doors. However, we are instituting a new database that will track injuries and fatalities associated with motor vehicle events that do not involve crashes. The database will include power window and power door injuries and fatalities. We could amend the FMVSSs in the future if the new database indicates a safety need to do so.

Question 3: Considering the safety of vehicle occupants, should we advise our engineers to design the anti-pinch feature of their sliding doors to comply with the FMVSS No. 118 automatic reversal requirement?

Answer: NHTSA does not have any recommendations as to whether the sliding doors should meet the FMVSS No. 118 automatic reversal requirement.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:118#206
d.4/7/06

ID: 0009-2

William L. Blake, Esq.
900 Rockefeller Building
614 Superior Ave., N.W.
Cleveland, OH 44113

Dear Mr. Blake:

This responds to your letters of April 29 and May 11, 1994, to the Department of Transportation with respect to the importation of replacement parts for a 1985 Mercedes-Benz 280SL that was not originally manufactured to conform to Federal bumper requirements, and which, apparently, was not conformed after importation to comply with those requirements. Your client, who owns such a vehicle, has been informed that "it is illegal to import bumper parts which do not conform to United States crash standards and that accordingly the entire bumper must be replaced . . . ." You have asked whether it is legal to import "European bumper parts" for the vehicle in question, and for us to provide you with citations to appropriate statutes and regulations.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issues Federal motor vehicle safety standards under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) and bumper standards under Title I of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (Cost Savings Act, 15 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.). NHTSA is authorized to issue safety standards and bumper standards for new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. All motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment manufactured or imported for sale in the United States must comply with all applicable safety standards and bumper standards.

NHTSA has issued one bumper standard, which is set forth at 49 CFR Part 581. The standard was issued under the joint authority of the Safety Act and the Cost Savings Act. While the agency has the authority to issue bumper standards for both passenger motor vehicles and passenger motor vehicle equipment, it has to date only issued a bumper standard for motor vehicles. There is no applicable standard that replacement bumper components must meet, and, because of this, no prohibition against importation of bumper system components which differ from those required for a vehicle to comply with

Part 581. I note that this is reflected in the lack of any provision in our importation regulation, 49 CFR Part 591, requiring conformance of imported bumper parts.

Your second question is whether it is illegal for an owner "to participate in the installation of bumper parts which do not conform to United States standards." As we have seen, no Federal standards apply to replacement bumper parts. This means that it is not illegal for an owner or anyone else to participate in the installation of equipment that is intended to replace original bumper equipment on vehicles that were not manufactured to conform to U.S. bumper requirements. As a matter of interest, our records do not indicate that the importer of the vehicle in question, WDB1070421A026883, failed to conform it to Part 581, but we cannot verify this as the conformance documentation for the vehicle no longer exists.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:581#591#CSA d:6/9/94

ID: 000940 rbm

Robert C. Lange, Executive Director
Vehicle Structure and Safety Integration
GMNA Product Development
General Motors Corporation
30200 Mound Road
Warren, MI 48092-2025

Dear Mr. Lange:

This responds to your request asking whether a GM driver and passenger seat belt reminder system recently developed by General Motors Corporation (GM) violates any Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The GM system, as described, is not prohibited by any such standards.

According to your letter, the GM system consists of a multi-stage chime and lamp warning cycle that lasts 75 seconds and is repeated three times per ignition cycle. Buckling the driver or passenger seat belt at any time will stop all warning systems for that seating position. Each cycle consists of three phases. The first phase lasts 8 seconds and consists of both a chime and a seat belt warning lamp. The next, 12-second phase consists of a seat belt warning lamp without a chime. The third phase lasts 55 seconds and consists of a flashing seat belt warning lamp. The first cycle begins when the ignition is turned on. The second cycle follows 30 seconds after the first cycle is completed, and the third stage follows 180 seconds after the second cycle is completed.

The only safety standard that could conceivably prohibit the GM system is Federal motor vehicle safety standard No. 208, Occupant crash protection (FMVSS No. 208). S7.3 of that standard requires the driver's seating position be equipped with a seat belt warning system that activates, under specified circumstances, a continuous or intermittent audible signal for a period of "not less than 4 seconds and not more than 8 seconds," and a continuous or flashing warning light for not less than 60 seconds after the ignition switch is turned on. The 75-second cycle described in your letter meets both of these criteria. Thus, the only remaining question is whether the two additional cycles are permitted under the standard.

The prohibition on any audible signal lasting longer than 8 seconds reflects a statutory requirement imposed by Congress in response to public resistance to seat belt interlock systems.[1] 49 U.S.C. 30124 provides, in relevant part, that a motor vehicle safety standard "may not require or allow a manufacturer to comply with the standard by...using...a buzzer designed to indicate a safety belt is not in use, except a buzzer that operates only during the 8-second period after the ignition is turned to the 'start' or 'on' position."

While the statute prohibits the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration from requiring, or specifying as a compliance option, an audible seatbelt warning that sounds outside of the specified 8-second period, it does not prohibit vehicle manufacturers from placing such systems in their vehicles. However, given FMVSS No. 208's requirement that the required seat belt warning be no longer than 8 seconds, a vehicle manufacturer wishing to provide a voluntary audible signal must provide some means of differentiating the voluntarily provided signal from the required signal. One way to differentiate between the two signals is a clearly distinguishable lapse in time between the two signals. The GM system, as described, provides a 97-second interval between the first and second audible signals and a 247-second interval between the second and third audible signals. These time lapses are sufficiently long to make the second and third audible signals clearly distinguishable from the initial, required 8-second signal. Accordingly, the two additional cycles are permitted under the standard.

I hope this information addresses your concerns. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Rebecca MacPherson of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref.208
d.2/38/03





---




[1] See House report 93-1452, pp. 44-45.